P P E ? T I S - S M C ' B: Utting A Rice On Quality HE Mpact of AME EX Arriage On Alifornia S Udget

UNPAGINATED VERSION FOR UNOFFICIAL USE PLEASE CITE 16 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV.
197 (2005)
PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY? THE

IMPACT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON
CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET
M.V. Lee Badgett† & R. Bradley Sears††
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................2
I. NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO WILL MARRY ..............................6
II. POSITIVE IMPACTS ON THE STATE BUDGET ..............................................8
A. Public Benefits Programs..................................................................9
B. Tax Revenues from Same-Sex Wedding Tourism ..........................14
C. Increased Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Same-Sex
Couples’ Weddings ...................................................................19
III. NO SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT ...........................................................20
A. Access to Courts..............................................................................20
B. State Employee Benefits .................................................................24
IV. NEGATIVE IMPACT: INCOME TAX REVENUES .......................................31
A. How Many Couples Will Marry If California Extends
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples? ...............................................32
B. What Will the Pre- & Post-Marriage Filing Status Be for
Individuals in Same-Sex Couples? ............................................33
C. How Much Will Couples’ Taxes Change?......................................33
D. Calculating the Overall Change in Tax Revenue ............................33
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA & OTHER STATES .............34
†
M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University
of Massachusetts Amherst and the Research Director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies.
††
Brad Sears is a Lecturer in Law at UCLA School of Law and Executive Director of
the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. The authors
would like to thank Elizabeth Kukura, the Williams Project’s Public Policy Fellow, and
Howard Jacobs for their research assistance with this article. The authors also thank Dr. Gary
Gates and Dr. Christopher Carpenter for providing data and unpublished calculations.
1
UNPAGINATED VERSION FOR UNOFFICIAL USE PLEASE CITE 16 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 197 (2005)
PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY? THE

IMPACT OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ON
CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET
M.V. Lee Badgett† & R. Bradley Sears††
INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................2
I. NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO WILL MARRY ..............................6
II. POSITIVE IMPACTS ON THE STATE BUDGET ..............................................8
A. Public Benefits Programs..................................................................9
B. Tax Revenues from Same-Sex Wedding Tourism ..........................14
C. Increased Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Same-Sex
Couples’ Weddings ...................................................................19
III. NO SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT ...........................................................20
A. Access to Courts..............................................................................20
B. State Employee Benefits .................................................................24
IV. NEGATIVE IMPACT: INCOME TAX REVENUES .......................................31
A. How Many Couples Will Marry If California Extends
Marriage to Same-Sex Couples? ...............................................32
B. What Will the Pre- & Post-Marriage Filing Status Be for
Individuals in Same-Sex Couples? ............................................33
C. How Much Will Couples’ Taxes Change?......................................33
D. Calculating the Overall Change in Tax Revenue ............................33
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA & OTHER STATES .............34
†
M. V. Lee Badgett, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University
of Massachusetts Amherst and the Research Director of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian
Strategic Studies.
††
Brad Sears is a Lecturer in Law at UCLA School of Law and Executive Director of
the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. The authors
would like to thank Elizabeth Kukura, the Williams Project’s Public Policy Fellow, and
Howard Jacobs for their research assistance with this article. The authors also thank Dr. Gary
Gates and Dr. Christopher Carpenter for providing data and unpublished calculations.
1
UNPAGINATED VERSION FOR UNOFFICIAL USE PLEASE CITE TO 16 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 197 (2005)
2 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1990s, the United States has been involved in an intensified
and often emotional debate about extending the right to marry to same-sex
couples. Although economic concerns may seem to be the antithesis of morality
and emotion, economic issues have played an important role in the debate. The
contractual nature of marital responsibilities, the valuable rights provided to
married people by law and custom, and the ongoing relevance of marriage in
the transmission of property across generations have generated both interest
among same-sex couples in having the right to marry and concern among some
politicians about the financial cost of expanding access to marriage.
In one sense, economic concerns were at the heart of the first major United
States marriage debate in the mid-1990s. After a 1993 Hawaii Supreme Court
ruling appeared to pave the way for marriage by same-sex couples,1 state and
federal elected officials feared that Hawaii would become a tourist magnet for
gay and lesbian couples.2 Politicians in other states envisioned same-sex
couples traveling to Hawaii to marry and returning home to claim the rights and
benefits provided to married couples. Not only would same-sex couples have
an economic incentive to marry, but the State of Hawaii would have had an
economic incentive to encourage marriage tourism. Two studies predicted that
hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples would travel to Hawaii and would
bring in roughly $200 million in annual new spending to boost the state
economy, resulting in millions of dollars in state tax revenues.3
In response to the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling, forty states eventually
passed laws or constitutional amendments stating that they would not recognize
the out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples,4 and Congress passed the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to allow states to do so, as well as to affirm
the federal government’s policy of only recognizing marriages of different-sex
1. Baehr v. Miike, 910 P.2d 112 (Haw. 1996); see also Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44
(Haw. 1993) (refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples appears to violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution).
2. See, e.g., STATE OF HAWAII, REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION
AND THE LAW, ch. 2, at 4 (1995), http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts95/sol/soldoc.html (last
visited Mar. 17, 2005).
3. Jennifer Gerarda Brown, Competitive Federalism and the Legislative Incentives to
Recognize Same-Sex Marriage, 68 S. CAL. L. REV. 745 (1995); How Will Same-Sex
Marriage Affect Hawaii’s Tourism Industry?: Hearing Before the Commission on Sexual
Orientation and the Law, 1995 Leg., 18th Sess. (Haw. 1995) (testimony of Sumner Lacroix
& James Mak) [hereinafter Hearing] .
4. HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP RECOGNITION LAWS: STATE BY
STATE (2004), http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=20716&
TEMPLATE=TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=66 (last visited Mar. 1, 2005);
Kavan Peterson, 50-State Rundown on Gay Marriage Laws, STATELINE.ORG, July 8, 2004,
available at http://www.nationalcoalition.org/legal/50staterundown.html (last visited Mar.
20, 2005).
2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 3
couples under federal law.5 During the DOMA debate, members of Congress
openly expressed concerns that new marriages would have an adverse effect on
the federal budget, since gay couples would qualify for, among other things,
social security survivor benefits and employment benefits provided to spouses.6
A second round of debates over same-sex couples marital rights and
responsibilities—either in the form of marriage or statewide civil union or
domestic partnership laws—has emerged in the last few years, and fiscal issues
related to marriage have become even more prominent than during the debates
in the mid-1990s.7 A recession that battered state budgets appears to have
heightened legislators’ concerns that rights for same-sex couples could become
an expensive proposition.8 Accordingly, when California first passed
legislation giving same-sex couples (and different-sex couples where one party
is over the age of sixty-two) the right to register as domestic partners,9 it
primarily included only rights which would have little or no impact on the state
budget.10
In 2003, when California began considering Assembly Bill (AB) 205,11 a
5. DOMA is a federal law that limits the definition of “spouse” in all federal laws and
regulations to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
Defense of Marriage Act, Pub. L. No. 104-199, § 1, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) (codified at 1
U.S.C. § 7 (1997)).
6. During the debate over DOMA, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia explicitly
invoked concerns about the fiscal impact of letting same-sex couples marry:
Moreover, I urge my colleagues to think of the potential cost involved here. How much is it
going to cost the Federal Government if the definition of ‘spouse’ is changed? It is not a
matter of irrelevancy at all. It is not a matter of attacking anyone’s personal beliefs or
personal activity. That is not my purpose here. What is the added cost in Medicare and
Medicaid benefits if a new meaning is suddenly given to these terms?
142 CONG. REC. S10111 (1996) (statement of Sen. Byrd).
7. See, e.g., Tom Herman, Tax Report: Same-Sex Marriages Would Add to U.S.
Revenue, WALL ST. J., July 1, 2004, at D2; Ethan Jacobs, Love Don’t Cost a Thing, BAY
WINDOWS ONLINE, July 1, 2004, available at http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/07
/01/LocalNews/Love-Dont.Cost.A.Thing-690966.shtml (last visited Mar. 18, 2005).
8. For a discussion of the fiscal crisis in the states in the early part of this century see
the series of reports by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State Fiscal Crisis—
Causes and Impacts, http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/statecrisis.htm (last visited Mar. 18, 2005).
9. 2001 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 893 (Deering).
10. Id. (expanding the rights of domestic partnership); 1999 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 588
(Deering). California’s initial pieces of domestic partnership legislation did confer one
benefit of marriage on domestic partners that impacted the state budget. AB 25 eliminated
state taxation on domestic partnership benefits offered by employers in the state. 2001 Cal.
Adv. Legis. Serv. 893 (Deering). However, the fiscal impact of this tax exemption on the
state was most likely negligible given the limited number of domestic partnership
registrations; the limited number of private employers in California offering domestic
partnership benefits to employees; the limited value of these benefits; and, thus, the limited
amount of revenues resulting from the taxation of these benefits.
11. 2003 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 421 (Deering). The rights conferred by AB 205 on
domestic partners include:
The right to use step-parent adoption procedures.
The right for one domestic partner to make legal, financial, and medical decisions, to file
law that would give domestic partners almost all of the rights and
responsibilities of marriage that the state can grant, legislators became
concerned that these extensions might have fiscal implications.12 In the end, the
version of AB 205 signed by then Governor Gray Davis contained only two
departures from the rights of marriage: domestic partners could not file as
married couples on their state income tax returns, and earned income would not
be considered community property of the couple.13 On January 1, 2005,
domestic partners gained all of the other rights associated with different-sex
spousal relationships under California state law.14
In 2004, Assembly Member Mark Leno introduced AB 1967, a bill that
would have given same-sex couples the right to marry.15 While the bill did not
reach the floor for a vote,16 AB 1967 would have given same-sex couples the
remaining rights and responsibilities of marriage. We have estimated the fiscal
impact of both AB 205 and of AB 1967 as each bill was debated in the
California legislature.17 For the sake of clarity and ease of presentation in this
state disability benefits, and to be appointed as a conservator if the other partner is

incapacitated.
The right to inherit from a partner if the partner dies without a will, the right to draft a will or
trust for a partner, the ability to use form wills, and the right to automatic appointment as
executor of a partner’s estate.
The right to sue for wrongful death and infliction of emotional distress when a partner is
killed or injured.
The right to certain employment benefits, including the right to paid leave to care for a
seriously ill partner or a partner’s child, the right to use sick leave to care for a partner or a
partner’s child, and in limited circumstances, health insurance.
12. See, e.g., id.; No More Fiscal Excuse to Cheat Gay Couples, GAY & LESBIAN
TIMES, May 29, 2003, available at http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=55&issue=805 (last
visited Mar. 17, 2005).
13. 2003 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 421 (Deering). Section 4 of AB 205 states:
SEC. 4. Section 297.5 is added to the Family Code, to read: 297.5. (a) Registered domestic
partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes,
administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other
provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” However, some
exceptions exist: “(g) Notwithstanding this section, in filing their state income tax returns,
domestic partners shall use the same filing status as is used on their federal income tax
returns, or that would have been used had they filed federal income tax returns. Earned
income may not be treated as community property for state income tax purposes.
Id.
14. AB 205 went into effect January 1, 2005. Id.
15. A.B. 1967, 2003-2004 Sess. (Cal. 2004), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/
asm/ab_1951-2000/ab_1967_bill_20040517_amended_asm.html (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
16. This bill was the first same-sex marriage bill in the United States to be approved by
a committee of a state legislature. The bill was passed out of the Assembly Judiciary
Committee, but did not receive enough votes by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Id. Testimony about our studies was presented at the Appropriations Committee.
17. See M. V. LEE BADGETT & R. BRADLEY SEARS, WILLIAMS PROJECT ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION LAW, EQUAL RIGHTS, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE IMPACT OF AB 205 ON
CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET (2003), http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/AB205/AB205
Study1.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2005); R. BRADLEY SEARS & M. V. LEE BADGETT,
Article, we are combining the two analyses to present our estimates of the fiscal
impact on the state budget as if California were considering moving from a
situation in which the state grants no rights to same-sex couples to a situation in
which same-sex couples are allowed to marry. In the final tally, we will
separate out the marginal impact on the California budget from taking the final
step and allowing same-sex couples to marry.
We undertake our analysis with the hope that this Article will serve as a
template for other states to evaluate the impact of extending the rights and
obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, either through marriage equality
or a civil union or domestic partnership law. To further that purpose, we note
when other states may have to consider an economic impact on the state budget
that is not applicable under California law. After Part I discusses our estimate
of the number of same-sex couples who would marry if they were allowed to
do so in California, Parts II, III, and IV outline and estimate the impact of
allowing same-sex couples to marry on the following revenue and expenditure
items in the California budget:
Changes in eligibility for means-tested public benefits provided by the state;
Increased sales tax revenues from increased tourism;
Increased sales tax revenues from residents’ same-sex couple weddings;
Changes in access to the family court system;
Changes in state employees’ eligibility and enrollment for employment
benefits that are currently only provided to employees’ spouses; and
Changes in the tax filing status, and therefore the tax payments, of couples in
domestic partnerships.
In conducting this study, we thoroughly examined the rights and
obligations of marriage under California law. We decided to focus on these six
areas because they were the only areas that had the potential of significantly
impacting the state budget. Depending on state laws, similar studies for other
states might need to consider inheritance and estate taxes. Our study of New
Jersey’s Domestic Partnership Act presents an example of how to do an
analysis for inheritance and estate tax.18 A recent report by the Congressional
Budget Office also provides such a discussion of the impact of same-sex
marriage on the federal estate tax.19 In addition, we analyzed the administrative
WILLIAMS PROJECT ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW, THE IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET OF

ALLOWING SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY (2004), http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/
publications/CASameSexMarriage.pdf (last visited Mar. 18, 2005).
18. M. V. LEE BADGETT & R. BRADLEY SEARS, WILLIAMS PROJECT ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION LAW, SUPPORTING FAMILIES, SAVING FUNDS: A FISCAL ANALYSIS OF NEW
JERSEY’S DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP ACT, 17-21 (2003), http://www1.law.ucla.edu/
~williamsproj/issues/NJ/NJ-DPA.doc (last visited Mar. 18, 2004).
19. Letter from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to the
Honorable Steve Chabot, Chairman, Subcomm. on the Constitution, U.S. House of
Representatives 3-4 (June 21, 2004), http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5559&
costs incurred by allowing same-sex marriage. Although administrative costs,

such as changing the marriage license and the application for such a license, are
often raised by opponents of same-sex marriage,20 we have found that such
costs are nominal21 and are offset by marriage license application fees.22
Based on the analysis set out in this study, we estimate that the California
state budget will benefit from an annual net gain of approximately $123 million
during the first three years it extends marriage to same-sex couples—
approximately $41 million per year. This estimate is conservative. In other
words, when we have had to choose between assumptions in this study in order
to estimate costs or benefits to the state, we have selected the assumptions that
would result in higher costs and lower benefits. Thus, the $41 million annual
savings that we estimate is at the lower end of a range of possible fiscal
benefits. Our best estimate is that the benefit to the state will be significantly
higher. To provide the most accurate estimates possible, we draw on the best
available data. We assess the impact on California’s revenues and expenditures
using the most recent year for which data is available on all the components
that we analyze.
I. NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO WILL MARRY
One estimate that is central to our analysis is the number of same-sex

couples who will marry. One basis for this analysis is California’s state
domestic partner registry. California currently allows same-sex couples to
register as domestic partners. Different-sex couples are also allowed to register
as long as one member of the couple is at least sixty-two years of age. As of
sequence=0 (last visited Mar. 18, 2005).

20. See, e.g., David R. Francis, The Dollars and Cents of Gay Marriage, CHRISTIAN
SCI. MONITOR, Aug. 30, 2004; Josh Gohlke & Trenton Bureau, 2 Assembly Panels Pass
Domestic Partnership Bill, REC., Dec. 12, 2003, at A05; Rona Marech, Panel Puts Same-Sex
Marriage Bill on Hold; State Law Makers Want to Review Financial Impact, SAN. FRAN.
CHRON., May 13, 2004, at B3.
21. Vermont reported that its more extensive civil union legislation involved additional
agency time in the first six months after passage, but that no additional staff was hired for
this purpose. OFFICE OF LEGIS. COUNCIL, REPORT OF THE VERMONT CIVIL UNION REVIEW
COMM’N 8-9 (2002), http://www.leg.state.vt.us/baker/Final%20CURC%20Report%20for%
202002.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2005); see also, CONN. GEN. ASSEMBLY, OFFICE OF LEGIS,
RESEARCH, OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS REPORT ON HB 5001 (2002) (concerning minimal
administrative costs resulting from Connecticut extending marriage to same-sex couples),
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/connstudy_files/connstudy.htm (last visited Mar.
21, 2004); OFFICE OF LEGIS. COUNSEL, REPORT OF THE VERMONT CIVIL UNION REVIEW
COMM’N 7 (2001) (finding minimal start-up costs after civil unions offered in Vermont for
six months), http://www.leg.state.vt.us/baker/cureport.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
22. The marriage license fees in California are set by each county. CAL. CONST. art. XI,
§ 7. Marriage fees range from $50.00 (San Diego County) to $97.00 (Ventura County). See
Website of San Diego County, http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/arcc/services/marriage_ licenses.
html (last visited Mar. 21, 2005); Website of Ventura County, http://www.ventura.org/
recorder/marriage.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
May 2004, approximately 26,387 couples had registered as domestic partners

with the state.23 Unfortunately, California does not track how many couples
registering are of the same or different sex. In this analysis, we assume that
most domestic partners are same-sex couples. This assumption is reasonable
given that different-sex couples are legally allowed to marry. In addition,
persons over sixty-two are less likely to form non-marital cohabitating
relationships with a different-sex partner,24 most likely because of more
widespread moral disapproval of such relationships in current cohorts.
We predict that over time the new state rights and obligations, the potential
for access to federal rights and obligations,25 and the increased social status
that marriage provides will encourage more couples to marry than are currently
registered as domestic partners. We base this prediction on the experience of
Vermont’s civil union legislation,26 which provides those entering into civil
unions with all the statewide rights and obligations of spouses in civil marriage.
When compared to the number of same-sex couples identified by the 2000 U.S.
Census, approximately half of Vermont’s same-sex couples have entered into
civil unions.27 Currently, the 26,387 couples registered as domestic partners
under California law represent only twenty-seven percent of the 92,138 same-
sex couples identified as living in California by Census 2000.28 Thus, we
23. E-mail from Ms. Sandra Snell, Office of Sec’y of State of California to R. Bradley
Sears, Williams Project at UCLA School of Law (May 10, 2004) (on file with authors).
24. TAVIA SIMMONS & MARTIN O’CONNELL, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, MARRIED-COUPLE
& UNMARRIED-PARTNER HOUSEHOLDS: 2000 13-14 tbl. 6 (2003), http://www.census.gov/
prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf (last visited Mar. 22, 2005) (noting that partners in opposite-sex
unmarried partnerships are 12 younger, on average, than partners in marriages).
25. While currently the Federal DOMA law would prevent same-sex couples from
accessing any of the federal rights and benefits of marriage, California allowing them to
marry would at least give them standing to challenge the restrictions imposed by DOMA.
Since entering into a California domestic partnership would not provide such standing, some
same-sex couples who might gain from accessing federal rights, such as federal income tax
benefits, may refrain from registering as domestic partners but would opt to marry either to
challenge the Federal DOMA law themselves or to garner the benefit from such a challenge
by others. In particular, if the relief granted in such Federal DOMA challenge extended back
to the date of each couples’ state marriage, same-sex couples would have an incentive to
marry even while the Federal DOMA was still in place.
26. Vermont Civil Union Act, No. 91 (April 26, 2000), http://www.leg.state.vt.us/
docs/2000/acts/ACT091.HTM (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
27. In Vermont, 1933 same-sex couples identified themselves in the 2000 U.S. Census.
SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 4 tbl. 2. As of July 2004, 998 same-sex couples,
or 51.6% of couples who identified themselves on Census 2000, have entered into a civil
union. E-mail from Richard McCoy, Office of Vital Records, Vermont Dep’t of Health, to R.
Bradley Sears (July 8, 2004) (on file with authors).
28. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 4 tbl. 2. There is some evidence that the
2000 U.S. Census undercounted the number of cohabitating same-sex couples. M.V. LEE
BADGETT & MARC A. ROGERS, INST. FOR GAY & LESBIAN STRATEGIC STUDIES, LEFT OUT OF
THE COUNT: MISSING SAME-SEX COUPLES IN CENSUS 2000 (2003), http://www.iglss.org/
media/files/c2k_leftout.pdf (last visited on Mar. 21, 2005) (noting that two surveys estimated
the undercount at 16% to 19%); DAVID M. SMITH & GARY J. GATES, HUMAN RIGHTS
assume that the comprehensive set of rights provided under Vermont law and
the higher social status attributed to civil unions have caused a larger
percentage of couples to seek legal recognition of their relationships.
We also assume that, in the short term, the percentage of same-sex couples
who marry will not equal the percentage of different-sex couples who marry
(over 90%).29 Some same-sex couples will not choose to marry for the same
reasons that some different-sex couples choose not to marry. In addition, we
assume that same-sex couples will be less likely to marry in the short term
because of fears about marriage “outing” their sexual orientation, both in
general and to the government.30 In addition, lack of knowledge about changes
in the law that permit same-sex marriage and the absence of a tradition of
marriage in the gay and lesbian community may result in a smaller percentage
of same-sex couples marrying. In other words, while different-sex couples have
been raised assuming that they are able to marry, same-sex couples will have to
learn that they now have that right and grow accustomed to the institution.31
Therefore, we base our analysis on the estimate that approximately one-
half of the same-sex couples identified in California in Census 2000 will marry,
meaning 46,000 out of approximately 92,000 couples. Stated differently, we
predict that almost twice as many same-sex couples in California would marry
than those who have currently registered as domestic partners with the state.32
II. POSITIVE IMPACTS ON THE STATE BUDGET
We find that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have three positive
CAMPAIGN, GAY AND LESBIAN FAMILIES IN THE UNITED STATES: SAME-SEX UNMARRIED
PARTNER HOUSEHOLDS 2 (2001) (estimating undercount at 62%), http://www.hrc.org/
Template.cfm?Section=Census_20001&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cf
m&ContentID=13396 (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
29. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 3-4 & tbl. 2.
30. For example, a teacher recently had his job threatened after students and co-
workers learned he had married in San Francisco. Other teachers expressed concerns about
revealing marriages. Dana Hull, Same-Sex Educational Dilemma: To Tell or Not to Tell
Schoolchildren, SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS ONLINE, May 7, 2004, http://www.mercurynews.
com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/8611351.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
31. For example, to combat the gap between changes in state law and people’s
knowledge about those changes, California sent out three notices to registered domestic
partners about the effect of AB 205 on their domestic partnerships. 2003 Cal. Adv. Legis.
Serv. 421 (Deering).
32. This estimate seems consistent with the recent experience in San Francisco when
the city extended marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During a one month period,
approximately 4000 same-sex couples were married. MABEL S. TENG, SAN FRANCISCO
ASSESSOR-RECORDER, DEMOGRAPHICS BREAKDOWN OF SAME GENDER MARRIAGES slide 2
(2004), http://www.alicebtoklas.org/abt/samesexmarriagestats.ppt (last visited Mar. 21,
2005). If that rate were to continue—assuming that the increase in venues and the assured
validity of the marriages would roughly offset the sense of urgency and the increased
capacity for providing marriages in San Francisco earlier this year—approximately 48,000
resident same-sex couples would marry in California in a year.
impacts on California’s budget: (1) expenditure savings in means-tested public

benefits programs; (2) increased sales tax revenues from tourism; and (3)
increased sales tax revenues from expenditures on weddings by California
resident same-sex couples.
A. Public Benefits Programs
Allowing same-sex couples to marry is likely to affect expenditures on

California’s public benefits programs. Many of these programs are means-
tested, and the income of spouses is included in calculating eligibility for
benefits, such as: CalWORKS or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF),
Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program), SSI Disability, the California Food
Assistance Program, and Healthy Families (State Child Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP)).33 With same-sex marriage, the income of benefit
recipients’ same-sex spouses will be included in calculating program eligibility
on the same basis as different-sex spouses. If fewer couples qualify for these
programs, or if the benefits that a couple qualifies for are lower because of the
income that the state will now count, then the state will spend less money.
If California allows same-sex couples to marry, the state will have the
discretion to rewrite some of the regulations for determining whose income and
assets count in determining eligibility for these programs. For CalWORKS or
TANF (and, therefore, for individuals qualifying for Medi-Cal because they
receive TANF), the California Food Assistance Program, and Healthy Families
(S-CHIP), the state determines the eligibility standards and can amend them to
require the state to take into account a same-sex spouse’s income and assets
when determining the eligibility of an individual or family.34 For SSI and
33. U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

SERVS., 2003 POVERTY GUIDELINES I-864 (2003), http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/
files/I-864.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005) (defining the following as federal mean-tested
public benefits: Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California), Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
TANF, and SCHIP (Healthy Families in California)); see also CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §§
18900, 18901, 18901.5 (Deering 2004) (describing the California Food Assistance Program);
CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 14005.40 (Deering 2004) (describing the general provisions of
the California SSI program); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, §§ 50251(a)–50251(b) (2004)
(describing California’s Medi-Cal program); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, §50373 (2004)
(describing the Medi-Cal Family Budget Unit Determination).
34. Income limits are determined by the state for TANF/CalWORKS even though the
federal government provides funding. Income guidelines for SCHIP/Healthy Families are
determined by the federal and state governments, although states have a great deal of
flexibility within the federal guidelines. See U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, MEANS-TESTED
PROGRAMS: DETERMINING FINANCIAL ELIGIBILITY IS CUMBERSOME AND CAN BE SIMPLIFIED
14 tbl .4 (2001), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0258.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005). The
California Food Assistance Program is a state program; therefore, the state is entirely free to
set the income guidelines. See also FRANK ULLMAN ET AL., URBAN INST., STATE CHILDREN’S
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM: A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS 3 (1998), http://www.urban.org/
UploadedPDF/occ4.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005) (noting that states define the eligibility
standards under their own plans).
Medi-Cal, the federal government determines generally applicable eligibility

standards, and states have more limited discretion in developing their own
standards and procedures.35 Because of the Federal DOMA, the state may not
be able to simply redefine the term “spouse” in eligibility requirements to
include recipients’ same-sex spouses.36
However, in assessing eligibility for Medi-Cal, it is likely that the state will
be obligated to take into account the resources of same-sex spouses under state
and federal regulations. First, under California’s community property rules and
Medi-Cal regulations, one-half of the community property of the same-sex
spouses will be deemed to be that of the applicant. Thus, one-half of the income
or assets of the same-sex spouse will be considered to be the applicant’s own
resources or available income.37 In addition, California regulations require the
state to consider any available income, including “contributions from any
source,” and the resources of third parties who are legally liable for health care
costs.38 Medi-Cal is a provider of last resort, and federal and state laws require
the state to assure that Medi-Cal recipients utilize all other resources—that is,
third parties available to them to pay for all or part of their medical care needs
35. U.S. GEN. ACCOUNTING OFFICE, supra note 34, at 14. The federal government
determines the income limits for SSI. The state and federal governments both have a role in
determining the income eligibility for Medicaid/Medi-Cal, although states have greater
discretion in determining the income requirements for the disabled. Id.
36. DOMA limits the definition of “spouse” in all federal laws and regulations to refer
“only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Defense of Marriage Act,
Pub. L. No. 104-199, § 1, 110 Stat. 2419 (1996) (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 (1997)). “Spouse”
is used to specify individuals whose assets and income may be counted for SSI and Medicaid
eligibility purposes. Thus, arguably, DOMA would prohibit the state from interpreting the
term “spouse” in the regulations to include same-sex domestic partners. This issue arose in
Vermont with respect to its treatment of couples in a civil union within the Medicaid
program. Federal officials have not yet issued a formal opinion as to whether a civil union
partner could be treated as a spouse. David Mace, Critics Say Rule Change Violates Civil
Unions, TIMES ARGUS (Montpelier), Apr. 17, 2003, http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.
dll/article?AID=/20030417/NEWS/304170350&SearchID=73188861933819 (last visited
Mar. 21, 2005).
37. CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 50072 (2004) (defining community property); CAL.
CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 50076 (2004) (“For the purposes of determining Medi-Cal eligibility,
share of community property is to be treated as if each spouse owns one-half of the
community property.”); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 50420.5 (2004) (stating that where one
spouse is in a long-term care facility, Medi-Cal has a rebuttable presumption that each
spouse has a one-half community property interest in the total monthly gross earned and
unearned income of both spouses).
38. See, e.g., CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, §§ 50501, 50507 (2004) (defining gross
unearned income to include “contributions from any source” and “any other income which is
available to meet current needs”); CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 22, § 50513(a) (2004) (noting that
income actually available shall be considered in determining the person’s or family’s
eligibility); see also CAL. STATE MEDICAID PLAN, THIRD PARTY LIABILITY § 4.22, supps. &
attachs. (1994), http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicaid/stateplans/results.asp?State=CA&Section
=4.22&Type=Section&Terr=S (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
before turning to Medi-Cal.39 Third parties are defined by federal and state law
as entities or individuals who are legally responsible for paying the medical
claims of Medi-Cal recipients, including any “individual who has either
voluntarily accepted or been assigned legal responsibility for the health care” of
a Medi-Cal applicant or recipient.40 Examples of third parties in federal and
state Medi-Cal manuals include absent and custodial parents.41 In addition,
state and federal law requires that the incomes of the sponsors of immigrants be
considered when determining an applicant’s eligibility.42 Given the inclusion of
these groups, in all likelihood the state will consider the income of a same-sex
spouse or registered domestic partners as a “third party” when determining
eligibility for Medi-Cal.43
California does not track the proportion of recipients for each benefit
program who might have an unmarried same-sex partner whose status would
change if they were allowed to marry, nor does it track the sexual orientation of
recipients. However, one helpful source of data is the 2001 California Health
Interview Survey (CHIS), a survey of 55,000 representative households in
California.44 CHIS asks respondents about their sexual orientation as well as
their marital or partnership status.45 It also asks a sub-sample of low-income
39. For example, federal law mandates that states must “take all reasonable measures to
ascertain the legal liability of third parties to pay for care and services available under”
Medicaid and to seek reimbursement in cases “where such legal liability is found to exist.”
42 U.S.C. § 1396a (2004).
40. See generally CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVS., STATE MEDICAID
MANUAL, §§ 3900-3910.15 (2003), http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/pub45pdf/sm3900.pdf
(last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
41. CAL. STATE MEDICAID PLAN, supra note 38, at attach. 4.22-A.
42. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVS., IMMIGRANT ELIGIBILITY FOR
MEDICAID AND SCHIP (2004), http://www.cms.hhs.gov/immigrants/ (last visited Mar. 21,
2005). For California programs that consider sponsor’s income in immigrant applications,
including CalWorks and food stamps, see CAL. IMMIGRANT WELFARE COLLABORATIVE,
MAJOR BENEFIT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO IMMIGRANTS IN CALIFORNIA (2004), http://www.
nilc.org/ciwc/tbls_other-mats/Cal_Benefits_Table_9-22-04.pdf (last visited Mar. 21. 2005).
43. Support that savings will be possible if not mandated in this area is increasing.
Recently, a study by the Congressional Budget Office on the fiscal impact of same-sex
marriage on the federal budget included savings in SSI and Medicaid spending based on this
analysis. Letter from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, supra note 19. In addition, the Comptroller of
New York provided testimony to the New York Legislature that extending civil marriage to
same-sex couples in that state would also result in savings through means-tested public
benefits programs. Press Release, Testimony of N.Y. State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi in
Support of the Right to Civil Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in N.Y. State (Mar. 3, 2004),
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/mar04/030304b.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2005). In
addition, Vermont has been taking advantage of these types of savings through its civil union
legislation. Telephone Interview by Gail Zatz, Consultant to the Williams Project, with Theo
Kennedy, Director, Div. of Pol’y Planning & Evaluation, Dep’t of Prevention, Assistance,
Transition & Health Access, Vt. Agency of Human Servs. (June 22, 2004).
44. See CAL. HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY (2001), http://www.chis.ucla.edu/about.html
(last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
45. CHIS asks separately about sexual orientation and partnership status, but it does not
TABLE I. Program Recipients Likely To Become Ineligible For Benefits

% of Recipients Number of 50% of Couples Deterrent Effect
Total With Same-Sex Partnered Overall Will From Potential
Recipients Partners Recipients Marry Loss of Benefits
Medi-Cal 5,841,455 1.00% 57,171 28,586 14,293
TANF/CalWORKS 483,500 0.20% 841 420 210
California Food
88,909 0.40% 348 174 87
Assistance Program
SSI Disability 746,943 3.10% 23,247 11,624 5,812
Healthy Families 630,586 0.20% 1,261 631 315
respondents about their participation in five public benefits programs.46

Thus, it is possible to estimate the proportion of public benefits recipients
who are in same-sex partnerships.47 We use those proportions to estimate the
number of people in each program who are in a same-sex partnership. Table I
shows that the proportions are small, ranging from 0.2% of TANF recipients to
3.1% of SSI/State Supplementary Payment recipients. CHIS did not ask about
enrollment in Healthy Families (S-CHIP), a program that provides health
insurance for children in low-income families, so we use the same 0.2%
enrollment estimate found for CalWORKS, another program for families that
have children. The numbers of individuals implied by the small proportions can
be substantial, ranging from the hundreds to the tens of thousands.
To assess the impact of same-sex marriage, we need to know how many of
these benefit recipients would marry and, as a result, how many would lose
benefit eligibility because their partner’s income is taken into account. Some
might argue that the potential loss of eligibility could serve as a disincentive for
benefit recipients to marry.48 However, several areas of research support the
expectation that benefit recipients will marry, even if doing so threatens their
eligibility. Research about welfare recipients has consistently demonstrated that
the threat of losing benefits has only a small impact on an individual’s
probability of marrying.49 Moreover, research suggests that the marriage has
deep symbolic and cultural value apart from economic considerations.50
collect data on the sex of the partner. CAL. HEALTH INTERVIEW SURVEY, CAL. HEALTH
INTERVIEW SURVEY ADULT QUESTIONNAIRE A-62 (2001), http://www.chis.ucla.edu/pdf/
CHIS2001_adult_q.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005). We assume that a gay or lesbian
recipient’s partner is of the same-sex. We omit bisexuals from this analysis since we cannot
identify their partner’s sex. Since some bisexual recipients will also have same-sex partners,
this omission means that we are underestimating the number of recipients who would lose
public benefits, and consequently, we are underestimating the decrease in state expenditures.
46. Id.
47. We thank Dr. Christopher Carpenter of the University of California-Irvine for
tabulating these figures on our behalf from the confidential version of the CHIS.
48. Some benefit recipients will remain eligible for benefits because their partner’s
income is so low that, even when considered, it will not disqualify them.
49. Robert Moffitt, Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review, 20 J. ECON.
LITERATURE 1, 27-31 (1992).
50. See ELLEN LEWIN, RECOGNIZING OURSELVES: CEREMONIES OF LESBIAN AND GAY
COMMITMENT (1998); LESBIAN AND GAY MARRIAGE: PRIVATE COMMITMENTS, PUBLIC
Finally, marriage might come with other financial advantages that outweigh
this consequence, such as spousal benefits from employers.
Accordingly, to estimate the number of recipients with same-sex partners
who will marry and lose their eligibility for state means-tested public benefits
programs, we make two adjustments. The first adjustment predicts that only
fifty percent of such partnered recipients will marry. This reflects our estimate
that fifty percent of the same-sex couples counted in Census 2000 in California
will marry.51 Second, we halve the number of remaining recipients to account
for any deterrent effect that losing benefits might have on recipients marrying a
same-sex partner and to account for the possible continued eligibility of some
of the recipients who do marry. This is a very conservative adjustment because,
as explained above, studies indicate that the threat of losing welfare benefits
does not significantly deter different-sex couples from marrying.52
In Table II below, to estimate the savings to the state each year, we take
our estimates of the number of recipients who will become ineligible for each
benefit program as a result of the state’s recognition of same-sex marriage and
multiply it by the average annual payment for each benefit.53 For programs that
are jointly funded by the state and federal government, we take out the savings
that will accrue to the federal government.54 The “Total Annual Savings” row
of Table II shows our best estimate of California’s savings from each of these
five means-tested public benefits programs if it recognizes same-sex
CEREMONIES (Suzanne Sherman ed., 1992).

51. Out of the 92,138 same-sex couples in California that were counted by Census
2000, 26,387 or 29% have registered as domestic partners. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra
note 24, at 4.
52. Moffitt, supra note 49.
53. CAL. DEP’T OF SOC. SERVS., PUB. ASSISTANCE FACTS AND FIGURES (2003) (stating
the average monthly benefits for CalWORKS, SSI/SSP Disabled, and the California Food
Assistance Program), http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/res/pdf/Paff/2003/PAFFJan03.
pdf (last visited on Mar. 21, 2005). See also CAL. BUDGET PROJECT, BUDGET
BACKGROUNDERS: MAKING DOLLARS MAKE SENSE (2004) (listing the average monthly cost
to the state for Healthy Families per child), http://www.cbp.org/2004/0402bbhealthyfam.pdf
(last visited on Mar. 21, 2005); CAL. HEALTH CARE FOUND., MEDI-CAL FACTS AND FIGURES:
A LOOK AT CALIFORNIA’S MEDICAID PROGRAM, 27 (2004) (charting the average Medi-Cal
spending per beneficiary for children and adults, http://www.chcf.org/documents/policy/
MediCalFactsAndFigures.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005). To calculate the average Medi-
Cal benefit, we also assume that all of the elderly and disabled recipients who receive higher
benefits will be deterred from marrying and only use the average benefits for adult and child
recipients. Since same-sex couples with children in California, on average, have two
children, we calculate the average benefit based on a family of one adult and two children.
Id. We also increase the 2001 benefit rate to a 2003 rate, by including a 3% increase for 2002
and for 2003. Telephone Interview with Christopher V. Perrone, M.P.P., Senior Program
Officer, California Health care Foundation (May 10, 2003).
54. UNITED STATES DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., INDICATORS OF WELFARE
DEPENDENCE, app. A (2002), http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators02/appa-ssi.htm#SSI
(last visited Mar. 21, 2005); Telephone Interview with Christopher V. Perrone, supra note
53.
marriage—over $50 million in savings each year.

Our estimate of the state’s savings from means-tested public benefits
illustrates that in obtaining same-sex marriage, same-sex couples will take on
not only the benefits of marriage but also its obligations—in this case the
financial obligation to care for one another if they are determined able to do so
by the state. Individuals in same-sex marriages will become ineligible for
benefits since they will be treated the same as members of heterosexual
marriages. While these couples or individuals may or may not need the benefits
that they lose, they will be no worse off than similarly situated heterosexual
married couples.
TABLE II. Estimated Savings from Means-Tested Public Benefit Programs
Average Average Recipients Total Savings State
Monthly Annual Made (Federal and Share of Estimated
Program Payment ($) Payment ($) Ineligible State) Cost Savings
Medi-Cal 387 4644 14,293 66,375,531 0.5 33,187,766
TANF/CalWORKS 527 6324 210 1,329,621 1 1,329,621
California Food
75 900 87 78,300 1 78,300
Assistance Program
SSI Disability 605 7260 5812 42,193,305 0.37 15,611,522
Healthy Families 39 468 315 147,537 0.5 73,769
Total Annual Savings: $50,280,998
B. Tax Revenues from Same-Sex Wedding Tourism
Analyses of other states’ consideration of opening marriage to same-sex

couples have argued that the first state or states to do so would experience a
wave of increased tourism that would bring millions of additional dollars in
revenue to state businesses.55 In addition, resident couples of California will
have weddings, increasing their expenditures and leading some to spend from
savings. This increase in business sales from tourism and weddings, in turn,
will bring sales tax revenues to the state. Recently, Forbes estimated that if gay
and lesbian couples throughout the country were allowed to marry, this would
generate $16.8 billion in new spending over the next several years, adding
significantly to America’s annual $70 billion wedding industry.56 Another
recent estimate concludes that gay marriage will generate a billion dollars per
year in spending in the United States.57
In the spring of 2004, the issuance of gay marriage licenses in Portland,
55. For analyses of the Hawaii situation, see Brown, supra note 3, at 745, and Hearing,
supra note 3, at app. I (testimony of Sumner LaCroix & James Mak). For an analysis of the
Vermont situation, see M. V. LEE BADGETT, INST. FOR GAY & LESBIAN STRATEGIC STUDIES,
THE FISCAL IMPACT ON THE STATE OF VERMONT OF ALLOWING SAME-SEX COUPLES TO
MARRY 1 (1998), http://www.iglss.org/media/files/techrpt981.pdf (last visited Mar. 9, 2005).
56. Aude Lagorce, The Gay Marriage Windfall: $16.8 Billion, FORBES ONLINE, Apr. 4,
2004, available at http://www.forbes.com/commerce/2004/04/05/cx_al_0405gaymarriage.
html (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
57. Shawn Hubler, Hotels Are Hoping to Capitalize on a Gay Marriage Boom, L.A.
TIMES, Mar. 28, 2004, at C1.
Oregon and San Francisco, California provided support for these predictions.
The actual experience of businesses in Portland58 and San Francisco59
demonstrates that allowing same-sex couples to marry does in fact generate
tourism and additional revenue for businesses. For example, same-sex couples
from forty-six states and eight countries traveled to San Francisco to get
married during the one month that the city issued marriage licenses.60
Furthermore, in anticipation of the availability of same-sex marriage in
Massachusetts, cities in that state have experienced a spike in hotel
reservations, catering requests, and other wedding-related orders.61 Estimates
of Massachusetts’ potential gain from out-of-state couples coming to the state
to marry have exceeded $100 million.62 However, Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney has repeatedly issued statements that according to a 1913
Massachusetts state law, gay and lesbian couples from outside of the state
cannot marry in Massachusetts. He has ordered clerks in Massachusetts not to
issue licenses to out-of-state couples and threatened them with legal action if
they fail to comply with his order.63 Governor Romney’s statements and
actions have made uncertain how much that state will benefit from increased
tourism revenues by allowing same-sex marriage.
To estimate the tourism impact of allowing same-sex marriage in
California, we base our analysis on conservative assumptions in order not to
58. See Helen Jung, Gay Marriages May Bring Joy to Tourism, OREGONIAN, Mar. 5,
2004, at D1 (quoting Joe D’Alessandro, President of the Portland Ore. Visitors Ass’n as
saying gay marriage would no doubt provide an “economic boost” to Portland as gay couples
and their families fly in for weddings); David Sarasohn, Gay Marriage, Tourism: A Package
Deal, OREGONIAN, Apr. 11, 2004, at C4 (“It’s definitely having a positive impact, because
more people are coming to Portland. They fly in, sometimes with families, friends, children,
whatever. I’ve talked to the hotel people, and they say they’ve seen an increase in gay and
lesbian customers.” (quoting D’Alessandro)).
59. See Douglas Belkin, Wedding Bell Bonanza Tourism, Marriage Industry Foresee
Boom in Same-Sex Nuptials, BOST. GLOBE, Feb. 26, 2004, at 1; Laura Bly, Localities
Cashing in on Same-Sex Marriages, USA TODAY, Feb. 27, 2004, at D1; Jung, supra note 58,
at D1 (noting that when San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
hotels saw an increase in occupancy rates and Macy’s ran out of wedding rings); Heather
Knight, Windfall in Castro: ‘Giddy’ Newlyweds Have Been Boon for S.F. Neighborhood,
SAN. FRAN. CHRON., Feb. 18, 2004, at A1 (stating that gay marriages have been “great for
businesses as newlyweds throw their money at the neighborhood’s florists, jewelry stores,
liquor shops, bookstores and photo processors”); Dean E. Murphy, San Francisco Toasts
Gay Weddings, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 29, 2004, at 3.
60. TENG, supra note 32, at slides 2-3.
61. See, e.g., Bly, supra note 59, at D1; Thea Singer, Three Swank Cities Are Becoming
Marriage Meccas for Gay Couples, BOST. HERALD, Mar. 22, 2004, at 27 (reporting that
hotels, banquet halls, florists, jewelers, and other wedding-related businesses in Boston,
Cambridge, and Northampton have seen “an upsurge of 10 to 100 percent in inquiries and
bookings from gay couples” looking to marry); Marie Szaniszlo, P’Town Set for Gay-Wed
Rush, BOST. HERALD, Apr. 11, 2004, at 10.
62. Singer, supra note 61, at 27.
63. Pam Belluck, Romney Won’t Let Gay Outsiders Wed in Massachusetts, N.Y. TIMES,
Apr. 25, 2004, § 1, at 1.
overstate the revenues that would be generated. We first offer estimates of the
number of out-of-state couples who might travel to California to marry. Then
we multiply those numbers by the average spending per visitor to get one
estimate of new business spending. Next, we multiply that figure by the state
multiplier for a more realistic estimate. Finally, we multiply new spending by
the state sales tax rate64 to estimate new tax revenues.
How many couples will travel to California to get married? Given the
uncertainty of whether out-of-state couples will be allowed to marry, we begin
our analysis with the conservative (revenue minimizing) assumption that
Governor Romney will eventually allow, or be ordered by a court to allow, out-
of-state couples to marry. Based on that assumption, it is likely that
Massachusetts will attract east coast and possibly midwestern couples, and that
California will be most attractive to couples in the western United States. We
will explore three different scenarios. In our first scenario, we assume that
California’s same-sex marriage tourism trade will track its current top domestic
markets: Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Washington, and Oregon.65 According to
Census 2000, there are 85,409 same-sex unmarried partner couples in these
states.66 Those couples, or almost 170,818 individuals, have easy access to
California and seem likely to choose it as a marriage destination.
Our second somewhat less optimistic but more realistic scenario assumes
that only half of the couples in these five states will travel to California and
marry. In Vermont, roughly half of that state’s number of same-sex couples
eventually entered a civil union.67 In this scenario, California businesses will
likely see an additional 85,409 visitors. This scenario may overestimate the
number of couples traveling to California if travel is a deterrent that reduces the
number of western state couples registering. However, it is likely that this
travel deterrent will be more than offset by the couples who will travel from
more distant states. As our third and most conservative scenario, we move
away from looking at just same-sex couples in these five western states to
considering same-sex couples nationally. In other words, we base this scenario
on an estimate of the percentage of couples nationally that would travel to
California over the next few years if the state allowed same-sex marriage.
We conservatively estimate that over the next few years ten percent of
same-sex couples nationally will marry—either in California, Massachusetts, or
64. Although sales and use tax rates vary by county in California, we use the lowest
rate of 7.25%. CAL. FRANCHISE TAX BD., FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS, CAL. 540 & 540A, 2003
PERSONAL INCOME TAX BOOKLET 24 (2003) (including state, local, and district taxes). This
makes our tourism estimates conservative because the counties that will experience the most
tourism have higher sales and use tax rates (Los Angeles: 8.25%; San Francisco: 8.5%;
Orange County: 7.75%; and San Diego: 7.75%). Id.
65. CALIFORNIA TOURISM, CALIFORNIA’S TOP DOMESTIC MARKETS—2002,
http://gocalif.ca.gov/state (last visited May 9, 2004).
66. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 4 tbl. 2.
67. See E-mail from Richard McCoy supra note 27.
some other state that may extend marriage to same-sex couples. We select ten
percent due to the large number of states that have enacted state DOMA laws,
which may deter same-sex couples in those states from marrying. We exclude,
of course, California residents in this scenario who are considered in the next
Part. This results in an estimate that, outside of California, 50,225 same-sex
couples will marry.68
We assume that half of these, or five percent of same-sex couples counted
in Census 2000 nationally, will travel to California to get married. This
estimate is conservative, in that California is the number one tourist destination
for domestic travel, accounting for 10.7% of all domestic travel in the United
States in 2003.69 Compared to Massachusetts, California has over ten times the
number of visitors each year: 300 million visitors compared to 26 million.70 All
three of our scenarios are conservative to the extent that they do not take into
account any fraction of the couples who were not counted in the 2000 U.S.
Census71 or any fraction of couples living in foreign countries traveling to
California to get married.72
Table III multiplies the number of visitors from each scenario by the
average length of the visit, 3.5 days, and the average spending per visitor per
day, or $91.15.73 In addition, couples coming to California to marry will
probably spend much more money than average tourists visiting California.
Many couples will do things to mark their marriages such as buying gifts,
having special ceremonies, parties, or dinners, and inviting friends and relatives
from outside of the state to join them for the occasions. On average, different-
sex couples spend $22,000 on their weddings in the United States.74 We make
a much more modest assumption for estimating how much same-sex couples
traveling to California will spend. We estimate that they will spend an
additional $11,000 to mark the occasion, one-half of that of straight couples.
68. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 4 tbl. 2.

69. CAL. TRAVEL & TOURISM COMM’N, CTTC YEAR IN REVIEW 3 (2004), http://www.
visitcalifornia.com/tourism/pdfs/T_TI_D_Overview_Year_In_Review_0304.pdf (last visited
Nov. 4, 2004).
70. Id.; MASS. OFFICE OF TRAVEL & TOURISM, MASS. DOMESTIC VISITOR PROFILE:
CALENDAR YEAR 2003 (2004), http://www.massvacation.com/html/industry_news/research/
domprof03.pdf (last visited Nov. 4, 2004).
71. BADGETT & ROGERS, supra note 28; SMITH & GATES, supra note 28, at 2.
72. When San Francisco allowed same-sex couples to marry in February and March of
2004, couples from eight foreign countries traveled there to marry. Brad Sears & Lee
Badgett, Tourism and Same-Sex Marriage, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIB., May 27, 2004,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040527/news_lz1e27sears.html (last visited
Mar. 21, 2005); Dean E. Murphy, San Francisco Married 4,037 Same-Sex Pairs From 46
States, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 18, 2004, at 26.
73. CAL. TRAVEL & TOURISM COMM’N, CAL. TOURISM AT THE CROSSROAD 12 (2003),
http://www.gocalif.ca.gov/tourism/pdfs/BC_Insights_Fall03.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
74. K. Kaufman, Catering to Same-Sex Couples: Niche: Amid the Furor over Gay and
Lesbian Marriage, the Wedding Industry is Finding Out There’s Money to Be Made, BALT.
SUN, Mar. 7, 2004, at 4A.
TABLE III. Impact On California Sales Tax Revenues From Extending

Marriage To Same-Sex Couples
Top Domestic 50% Top Domestic 5% Nationally
Tourism Nodel Markets States Markets States (Excluding CA)
New Visitors 170,818 85,409 50,225
Length of Stay 3.5 days 3.5 days 3.5 days
Average Expenditure
$91.15 $91.15 $91.15
Per Day Per Visitor
Wedding Spending
$11,000 $11,000 $11,000
Per Couple
Wedding Spending in
$2,250 $2,250 $2,250
California
Total Spending $246,661,192 $123,330,596 $72,524,900
State Sales Tax 7.25% 7.25% 7.25%
Total Sales Tax
$17,882,936 $8,941,468 $5,258,055
Revenues
Multiplier 2.3 2.3 2.3
Multiplier Effect $567,320,742 $283,660,371 $166,807,270
Total Sales Tax
$41,130,754 $20,565,377 $12,093,527
Revenue
This conservative estimate takes into account that some couples may have
already had a commitment ceremony; that same-sex couples may be less able to
rely on the resources of their parents and family for wedding expenditures; and
that some same-sex couples may not wish to have a public wedding because of
fears about publicly revealing their sexual orientation.75
We then assume that these couples will split their expenditures between
California and their home state. Although different couples will split their
expenditures in different ways, we assume that on average these couples would
spend twenty-five percent of these expenditures in California and seventy-five
percent in their home state. Thus, we estimate $2,250 in additional spending for
wedding celebration expenditures for each same-sex couple that travels to
California to get married. Next we take into account the multiplier effect of
tourism spending. Over time $1 brought into California from out-of-state will
generate more than $2.30 of additional spending in the state.76 Therefore, we
estimate the net marriage tourism impact to be $166.8 million to $567.3 million
in business revenue and $12.1 to $41.1 million in new sales tax revenues.
For our best estimate of the likely increase in sales tax revenues from
same-sex wedding tourism, we use our two more conservative scenarios to
create a predicted range of $12.1 to $20.6 million in additional sales tax
75. A gay wedding professional has estimated that same-sex couples spend $15,000 on
average on their weddings. Kaufman, supra note 74.
76. TRAVEL INDUS. ASS’N OF AMERICA, IMPACT OF TRAVEL ON STATE ECONOMIES 2000
(2002).
revenues.77 The lower figure on this range is based on the assumption that five
percent of same-sex couples in the states outside of California will visit the
state to marry if it becomes one of the first states to extend marriage to same-
sex couples. The high end of our range is based on the assumption that fifty
percent of same-sex couples in those states that are California’s chief domestic
tourism markets will visit the state to marry in the first few years in which it
extends marriage to same-sex couples.
In short, even a modest number of same-sex couples traveling to California
to marry will bring new customers to the state’s existing businesses and will
perhaps lead to new business development that will cater to the same-sex
marriage ceremony niche. The millions of dollars spent will add jobs and
profits to the state’s economy and create millions of dollars of additional sales
tax revenues.
C. Increased Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Same-Sex Couples’ Weddings
We also take into account that resident same-sex couples will spend money
on weddings if California allows them to marry. We estimate the number of
resident same-sex California couples that will get married and the amount of
money, on average, that they will spend. Table IV outlines the bottom-line
results of the findings explored in further detail in this Part.
TABLE IV. Additional Sales Tax Revenues Resulting From
Resident Same-Sex Couples’ Weddings
Number of Resident Weddings 46,069
Average Resident Spending on Weddings $11,000
Average Spending From Savings $5,500
Total Spending From Savings $253,379,500
Sales Tax* 0.0725
Total Sales Tax Revenues $18,370,013.75
*See supra note 79.
As explained in Part I, we assume that one-half of the same-sex couples in

California counted by Census 2000 will marry. For an estimate of how much
they will spend on their weddings on average, we use $11,000, or one-half of
the national average for spending on different-sex weddings.78 We then reduce
77. To put these numbers in context, total California travel and tourism expenditures
amounted to $78.2 billion in 2003 and generated $5 billion in state and local tax revenue.
CAL. TRAVEL & TOURISM COMM’N, supra note 69, at 1.
78. As explained in the Part above, this lower estimate takes into account that some of
these couples may have already had a commitment ceremony and therefore spend less on
their wedding; that same-sex couples may be less able to rely on the resources of their
parents and family for wedding expenditures; and that some same-sex couples may not wish
to have a public wedding that would publicly reveal their sexual orientation.
our estimate by fifty percent to account for the fact that some of this spending
will not be from savings. This may be particularly true for same-sex couples,
who may be less able to rely on the savings of their parents or families for their
wedding expenditures. In other words, some of the money that the couple
spends on the wedding will merely be money that they are not spending on
other things, thereby not generating additional business or sales tax revenues.79
However, when couples spend money on weddings out of their savings, there is
a boost to the economy since that money is otherwise out of circulation.
Based on these assumptions, we estimate that same-sex weddings in
California will generate an additional $84.5 million in business revenues and an
additional $18.4 million in sales tax revenues. Based on the predictions that the
same-sex marriage business will be an annual billion dollar industry, our
scenarios for increased tourism and resident wedding expenditures modestly
suggest that if California is only one of a handful of states where same-sex
couples could get married, it would receive approximately fourteen to eighteen
percent of that business.
III. NO SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT
Based on the best data available, we estimate that extending marriage to

same-sex couples will have a nominal impact on the state budget in the
following two areas: costs to the state court system; and costs for additional
benefits for California state employees.
A. Access to Courts
Extending marriage to same-sex couples would allow them the same access
to California courts as is currently provided to spouses. Married persons can use
state courts to protect wills, enforce marriage responsibilities, divorce, and
provide for a child. Married persons also have certain rights to sue third parties
who may have been responsible in some way for the death of their spouse. The
impact of extending marriage to same-sex couples on the state’s court system
depends on three things: the number of cases that will be added to the dockets
of the state’s courts as a result; the cost of resolving these cases; and any
offsetting savings or revenues that would result.
California already allows same-sex couples who register as domestic
partners access to some legal proceedings and causes of action in state courts,
such as the step-parent adoption process and the right to sue for wrongful
death.80 Thus, allowing same-sex couples to marry would not increase the
79. Although sales and use tax rates vary by county in California, in Table IV we use
the lowest rate of 7.25%. CAL. FRANCHISE TAX BD., supra note 64.
80. Registered domestic partners also already have the right to become, or to object to,
court-appointed conservators for their partners on the same basis as a spouse, the right to
burden on courts with regard to these proceedings and causes of action.

The only significant way same-sex marriage would augment court filings is
by allowing partners to petition to terminate their relations in court under the
procedures and laws applied to the termination of marriages. To estimate the
number of dissolution cases that would be added to the dockets of state courts if
California extends marriage to same-sex couples, we determined the dissolution
rates for same-sex couples under California’s current domestic partnership
legislation and Vermont’s civil union legislation by dividing the total number
of partnerships and civil unions by the number of terminations of partnerships
TABLE V. Estimates of Dissolutions Per Year of Marriages by Same-Sex Couples
Number of Estimated Same-

Estimate Number of Terminations Sex Marriages Estimate of
Method Unions Per Year Rate in California Dissolutions
California
Domestic 27,165 450 1.70% 46,000 782
Partnerships
Vermont
998 10 1% 46,000 460
Civil Unions
or unions filed each year. We the multiplied these rates by our projected
number of same-sex couples who would marry. Based on domestic partnership
terminations currently filed with the Office of the California Secretary of
State81 and the experience of Vermont under its civil union legislation,82 we
estimate that extending marriage to same-sex couples would add 460 to 78283
dissolution cases to the courts annually. Table V above outlines these findings.
inherit a share of their partner’s separate property if their partner dies intestate, the same
priority as a spouse to be appointed as the administrator of their partner’s estate, and the
right to sue for infliction of emotional distress when a partner is killed or injured. See 1999
Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 588 (Deering); 2002 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 447 (Deering).
81. Since July 1, 2000, 27,165 California couples have registered as domestic partners.
During that same period, there have been 1798 filings of Notices of Termination, or an
average of 450 per year. Telephone Interview with “Laurie,” Office of Cal. Sec’y of State
(July 9, 2004) (on file with authors).
82. In Vermont over the past four years, 6945 civil unions have been recorded, of
which 998 involved Vermont residents. However, Vermont’s family courts have only
entered 38 dissolutions of civil unions—or less than 10 per year. McCoy, supra note 27.
83. For several reasons, 782 overestimates the annual number of new dissolution filings
that are likely to occur if California extended marriage to same-sex couples. First, while
California law only requires one member of a domestic partnership to file a Notice of
Termination, in some cases both partners file it, and the Secretary of State’s office does not
keep track of duplicate filings. Telephone Interview with “Joaney,” Office of Cal. Sec’y of
State (May 14, 2003) (on file with authors). Second, while under current law domestic
partners are required to file a Notice of Termination with the Secretary of State if their
partner dies, under AB 205 or AB 1967, they would not be required to file a dissolution
proceeding in family court if their partner died. 2003 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 421 (Deering);
A.B. 1967, supra note 15.
Currently, California’s superior courts handle approximately 148,000 to

165,000 marital family law filings a year.84 Adding 782 filings to this caseload
would be an increase of only one-half of one percent (0.005) of the marital
family law filings for 2002-2003. In fact, as outlined in Table VI below, the
annual fluctuations in marital filings are far greater than this. During the past
decade, California family law marital filings have, on average, fluctuated by
4513 filings from year to year;85 782 new filings as a result of same-sex
marriage would be an insignificant blip on this radar screen.
TABLE VI. Annual Fluctuations in Family Law

(Marital) Filings, 1993-2003
Family Law Change from
Year (Marital) Filings Prior Year
2002-2003 148,511 11,760
2001-2002 160,271 5293
2000-2001 154,978 1100
1999-2000 156,078 449
1998-1999 156,527 6643
1997-1998 163,170 2676
1996-1997 165,846 3570
1995-1996 169,416 5293
1994-1995 164,123 3833
1993-1994 167,956 n/a
The insignificance of the cost of these filings is also evident when

compared to the caseload of the average superior court judge. The average
judge handles over 4100 cases each year.86 Even if all 782 of these new cases
went to one judge, it would only increase his or her docket by nineteen percent.
Alternatively, if these cases are spread out among all of the almost 200087
84. “Family law marital filings” refers to dissolution of marriage, legal separation, and
nullity of marriage filings. JUD. COUNCIL OF CAL., ADMIN. OFFICE OF THE COURTS, 2004
COURT STATISTICS REPORT, 50 tbl. 4 n.(F) (2004), http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/
documents/csr2004.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
85. Id. at 50.
86. Id. at 43 tbl. 1 (revealing 4174 filings per judicial position).
87. Id. (revealing 1915 superior court judicial positions). No official statistics are
available for either the number of family court judges or their dockets. In addition, some
counties do not even have family court judges. An informal estimate is that there are
approximately 211 family court judges, commissioners, and referees in California, including
74 child support commissioners. Telephone Interview with Don Will, Center for Families,
Children & the Courts, Jud. Council of Cal. (May 14, 2003) (on file with authors); E-mail
from Don Will, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Jud. Council of Cal. (May 16,
2003) (on file with authors). Thus, spreading the additional 762 dissolution filings among
these 137 family court judicial positions (211 family court judges minus 74 child support
commissioners) would only add six filings to the caseload of each judge.
judicial positions in California, only forty percent of these judges would have
even one case added to his or her docket, and the remaining sixty percent
would have no additional cases.
In fact, it is likely that these new cases will neither be clumped in one
courthouse, nor spread evenly throughout the state. Nonetheless, the raw
number of 782 cases is so small that we conclude that extending marriage to
same-sex couples would not result in any actual expenditures by the state court
system. In other words, the court system would not need to hire any additional
judges, clerks, bailiffs, or staff, or build any additional infrastructure to handle
these cases. In addition, extending marriage to same-sex couples will move
some cases out of civil court and into family court where they will be handled
in a more efficient legal regime. Specifically, when same-sex couples dissolve
relationships under current law, they do not have access to family court and the
family law rules that apply to married couples. Instead, they must resolve their
disputes in civil court according to the rules devised for “palimony” cases, that
is, under the rubric of contract and, possibly, quasi-contract.88
Palimony cases are likely to impose considerably greater burdens on courts
than are dissolutions in family court for several reasons:
(1) palimony cases require a threshold fact-intensive inquiry as to whether the
relationship and acts of the parties have created any legal obligations, while
marriage results in specified legal obligations;
(2) the sparsely developed rules applicable in palimony cases make them
difficult to settle or litigate efficiently, so dissolution of same-sex marriages
will be guided by the more determinate California Family Code;
(3) superior court judges handling palimony cases have little experience with
those cases, while family court judges will routinely apply the same law to the
dissolution of domestic partnerships that they apply to marriage dissolution;
(4) litigants in civil court do not have access to family court’s more efficient
procedures, including standard forms and expedited proceedings;
(5) parties have a right to a jury trial in civil court, but not in family court; and
(6) in family court dissolutions, many issues are resolved by mediation,
negotiation, arbitration, and private adjudication, where the parties bear most
of the costs.89
88. See Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976); Whorton v. Dillingham, 248 Cal.
Rptr. 405 (Ct. App. 1988); Jones v. Daly, 176 Cal. Rptr. 130 (Ct. App. 1981).
89. Interview with Grace Blumberg, Professor, UCLA School of Law, in Los Angeles,
Cal. (May 20, 2003). Blumberg teaches Property, Community Property, and Family Law.
She is a Reporter for the American Law Institute’s PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY
DISSOLUTION (2002), in which she co-authored the chapters on non-marital cohabitation.
Blumberg’s recent publications include: BLUMBERG’S CALIFORNIA FAMILY CODE
ANNOTATED (2002) and COMMUNITY PROPERTY IN CALIFORNIA (4th ed. 2003). See also AM.
LAW INST., Domestic Partners (Nonmarital Cohabitation), in PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF
FAMILY DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2002); Letter from Fred Hertz,
Esq. (May 19, 2003) (on file with authors). Hertz has handled a number of gay and lesbian
By transforming often-contested palimony cases in civil court into

dissolution cases in family system—where they can be handled more efficiently
and where, in most cases, the parties will settle and bear most of the costs—
extending marriage to same-sex couples might even result in some savings for
the California court system. Extending marriage to same-sex couples might
also increase the revenues of the state’s court system by generating new filing
fees. Fees are required when couples file dissolution proceedings. Currently,
the fees for an uncontested dissolution are $297.50 and $591.70 for a contested
dissolution.90 If, as projected, extending marriage to same-sex couples creates
762 dissolution cases, it will result in new filing fee revenues ranging from
$226,695 to $450,875 each year.
In summary, there would be no need for additional judges, staffing, or
courtrooms to handle the 762 cases that extending marriage to same-sex
couples might create each year. It is probable that the savings generated from
moving same-sex palimony cases out of civil court and into family court, in
addition to the revenues created from additional filing fees, would offset any
other administrative or marginal costs for handling these cases. Thus, we
conclude that extending marriage to same-sex couples will have a negligible
fiscal impact on the state court system.
B. State Employee Benefits
The State of California is an employer and, as such, provides certain

benefits to employees as part of a compensation package. These include health
benefits, death benefits, retirement benefits, survivor benefits, and various
leave programs. Some of these benefits cover an employee’s spouse and the
children of the employee’s spouse, as well as the employee. Extending
marriage to same-sex couples would allow additional persons to be covered by
these benefits. Three factors determine the fiscal impact that same-sex marriage
will have on the benefits that California provides state employees: the scope of
increased eligibility for benefits; the costs of providing any new benefits; and
the state’s share of those costs.
1. Employee Benefits Not Affected by Same-Sex Marriage
Same-sex couples who are registered domestic partners are already treated
the same as spouses in civil marriage for many of California’s state employee
dissolution cases and has written a number of books, including author of LEGAL AFFAIRS:
ESSENTIAL ADVICE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES (1998) and co-author of LIVING TOGETHER: A
LEGAL GUIDE FOR UNMARRIED COUPLES (10th ed. 2002); THE LIVING TOGETHER KIT (1996);
A LEGAL GUIDE FOR LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES (2004).
90. See, e.g., LOS ANGELES SUPER. CT., CIVIL FEE SCHEDULE (effective July 1, 2004),
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/fees/pdf/fee-schedule.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
benefits. For example, state employees can use sick leave or take six weeks of
leave with wage-replacement in order to care for an ill domestic partner, or the
child of a domestic partner, on the same basis that employees can receive such
benefits to care for a spouse or the child of a spouse.91 State employees can
also receive unemployment benefits if they leave employment to accompany
either a spouse or a domestic partner who is relocated to a place where it is
impractical for the employee to commute.92 In addition, health benefits are
already provided to the domestic partners of all state employees and retirees.93
Domestic partners of employees are also eligible to continue health benefits
after the death of the employee, if the domestic partner is receiving an ongoing
retirement allowance.94
Notably, during the past three years when state employees and annuitants
under CalPERS have been able to enroll domestic partners for health benefits,
less than one-half of one percent of state employees have done so.95 This low
enrollment rate is consistent with the experience of private companies and other
public employers who have offered health care benefits to domestic partners.96
In short, extending marriage to same-sex couples will not have any fiscal
impact on any of these benefits because they are already available to same-sex
couples who register as domestic partners.
2. Employee Benefits Affected by Same-Sex Marriage
State employees are entitled to death, survivor, and retirement benefits.

Extending marriage to same-sex couples will increase the eligibility for death
and survivor benefits, primarily by making same-sex spouses who survive an

93. See CALPERS, ENROLLING DOMESTIC PARTNERS, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.
jsp?bc=/member/health/elig-enroll/enrolldompartners.xml&pst=ACT&pca=ST (last visited
Mar. 18, 2005); CALPERS, ENROLLING ELIGIBLE FAMILY MEMBERS, http://www.calpers.ca.
gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/health/elig-enroll/enrollfamilymembers.xml&pst=ACT&pca=ST
(last visited Mar. 21, 2005). In addition, the University of California provides health and
welfare benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of its employees. See UNIV. OF CAL.,
HUMAN RESOURCES & BENEFITS, RETIREMENT PLAN, SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC
PARTNERS 3 (2002).
94. See CALPERS, HEALTH COVERAGE & REGISTERED DOMESTIC PARTNERS,
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/domestic-partner/faqs/healthfaqs.xml
(last visited Jan. 22, 2005).
95. Telephone Interview with Pamela Schneider, CalPERS Office of Gov’t Affairs
(May 21, 2003).
96. See M.V. Lee Badgett, Calculating Costs with Credibility: Health Care Benefits
for Domestic Partners, 5 ANGLES l (2000), http://www.iglss.org/media/files/Angles_51.pdf
(last visited Mar. 21, 2005); Gary J. Gates, Domestic Partner Benefits Won’t Break the Bank,
URBAN INST., Apr. 1, 2001, http://www.urban.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&NavMenu
ID=75&template=/TaggedContent/ViewPublication.cfm&PublicationID=7358 (last visited
Mar. 21, 2005).
employee or retiree eligible for monthly allowances and continued health

benefits coverage, benefits which are currently only provided to an employee’s
eligible family members, including a surviving different-sex spouse.
a. Death Benefits (Pre-Retirement)
The State of California provides benefits to the families of employees and

their named beneficiaries if an employee dies prior to retirement (death
benefits). There are two types of death benefits: lump-sum benefits and
monthly allowances. While the domestic partner of an employee can currently
receive the lump-sum benefits as a designated beneficiary,97 he or she is not
entitled to the same monthly allowances that are provided to spouses.
Extending marriage to same-sex couples will make same-sex spouses eligible
for such monthly allowances on the same basis as different-sex spouses.98
We estimate that less than one additional employee each year will be
eligible for death benefits. This small number is the result of the narrow
eligibility criteria for this benefit. For same-sex marriage to result in a new
beneficiary, the gay or lesbian state employee must: (1) be an active99 state
member enrolled in a CalPERS plan; (2) have a same-sex spouse; (3) die while
working; and (4) be otherwise eligible for a monthly allowance death benefit—
by being eligible to retire, having at least twenty years of state service credit, or
by dying as a direct result of a violent act while performing official job
duties.100 Only a state member meeting these four criteria would have a same-
sex spouse entitled to the automatic monthly allowance benefits.
We determine the number of people who would meet the first three of
these criteria above by using CalPERS membership data, data about the age of
members of same-sex couples from Census 2000, CalPERS actuarial tables,
and the take-up rate for CalPERS health benefits of one-half of one percent
97. However, domestic partners are only entitled to such benefits if they are the
designated beneficiary. A spouse would receive such a benefit if he or she was either the
designated beneficiary or if there were no designated beneficiary at the time of death.
98. In fact, domestic partners of some state employees already receive pre-retirement
death benefits on the same basis as spouses in a civil marriage. See UNIV. OF CAL.
RETIREMENT PLAN, SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS, supra note 93, at 1-2.
99. Active members are those currently actively employed by the state. Inactive
members have paid into a CalPERS plan, but are not currently employed by the state.
Inactive members are only entitled to a Limited Death Benefit, a refund of contributions
paid plus interest. This benefit, under current law, will be received by a named
beneficiary or a family member in an order of precedence created by law. Thus, if
extending the rights of spouses to same-sex couples has any impact on this benefit, it will
merely be to change the recipient. CALPERS, COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FIN. REP. 116-17
(2003), https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xtCTINcuOVt0n_2003%20CAF
R%20with%20art.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2005).
100. CALPERS DEATH BENEFITS OVERVIEW, http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/
member/death/benefitoverview.xml (last visited on Mar. 21, 2005).
(0.0052).101 There are currently 252,928 active CalPERS members.102

Assuming that the same percentage of these active CalPERS members will
have same-sex spouses as the percentage of CalPERS employees who currently
enroll same-sex domestic partners for health benefits, approximately 1315 of
the members will have a same-sex spouse. Since the median age of members of
same-sex relationships who identified themselves in Census 2000 is forty,103
we use that age to determine a death rate of 0.001 for these employees using
CalPERS actuarial tables.104 When we apply that to our estimate of the number
of active CalPERS members who will have a same-sex spouse, we produce an
estimate that only one additional state employee will meet the first two criteria
(death of a same-sex spouse) for receiving a pre-retirement death benefit. Table
VII below summarizes these findings.
TABLE VII. Estimate of Additional California State Employees with a Same-

Sex Spouse Who Will Die Each Year
CalPERS Domestic Estimate of
Active Partner Health Active Members CalPERS Estimated
CalPERS Benefit Take-Up with Same-Sex Actuarial Table Additional
Members Rate for Employees Spouse Death Rate Deaths
252,928 0.0052 1315 0.001 1.3
However, we cannot estimate the likelihood that an employee will also

meet one of the options under the fourth criterion (that he or she will be eligible
to retire, have at least twenty years of state service credit, or die a violent death
while working). We assume that if we could take these criteria into account the
probability that same-sex marriage would result in additional monthly
allowance death benefits being paid out in any given year would approach
zero.105 Consequently, extending marriage to same-sex couples will not have
101. Telephone Interview with Pamela Schneider, supra note 95 (noting annuitant’s
take-up rate). This low take-up rate is supported by the experience of the University of
California Retirement Plan (UCRP). Telephone Interview with Nancy Partovic, UCRP
(Apr. 28, 2003) (noting a take-up rate of 0.001).
102. CALPERS, COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, supra note 99, at 38
(listing membership data). This figure is the number of active members in the following
plans in 2003: state employees in the Public Employees Retirement Fund, members of
the Legislator’s Retirement Fund, members of the Judges’ Retirement Fund I and II.
103. R. BRADLEY SEARS & M. V. LEE BADGETT, WILLIAMS PROJECT ON SEXUAL
ORIENTATION LAW, SAME-SEX COUPLES AND SAME-SEX COUPLES RAISING CHILDREN IN
CALIFORNIA (2004), http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/publications/CA-SSCouples.
pdf (last visited Mar. 22, 2005) (stating that 40 is the median age of members of same-sex
couples in California).
104. CALPERS, COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, supra note 99, at 96-
101 (providing actuarial tables).
105. Additionally, in general, AB 205 will either augment only the amount of an
employee’s current death benefit, and/or change the beneficiary of such benefit, as opposed
any significant fiscal impact on providing death benefits to state employees.
b. Survivor Benefits: Post-Retirement
California offers three types of post-retirement death benefits: a lump-sum

benefit, a monthly allowance, and continued health benefits (survivor benefits).
With regard to the lump-sum benefit, extending marriage to same-sex couples
would have no impact. This benefit is already paid to a survivor of a retiree,
either a designated beneficiary or a surviving family member. Same-sex
marriage will only occasionally change to whom this benefit is paid, resulting
in no increased cost to the State of California.
A survivor’s monthly allowance can be divided into two parts: the survivor
continuance and the optional portion. Part of the monthly allowance benefit is
provided automatically to eligible family members of retirees as a matter of
statute. Eligible family members include spouses who meet certain other
criteria, natural and adopted children under the age of eighteen (if no eligible
spouse), or qualifying dependent parents (if no eligible spouse or children).
This part of the monthly allowance is called a survivor continuance. Domestic
partners are not entitled to a statutory continuance under current law.
In addition, retirees can choose to augment this automatic statutory
continuance by providing an annuity for their surviving spouse. A retiree can
do this by taking a reduction in his or her own lifetime monthly allowance. If
the retiree does so, the resulting annuity is called the “optional portion” of the
survivor’s monthly allowance. The beneficiary of the optional portion can be
either a spouse or a domestic partner, or the retiree can choose not to reduce his
or her allowance and not to create such an optional portion at all. In short,
extending marriage to same-sex couples will impact the monthly allowance
survivor benefit by making same-sex spouses eligible for a survivor
continuance on the same basis as different-sex spouses currently are.
Finally, survivors of retirees can only receive continued health benefits if
they receive a monthly allowance. By making same-sex spouses eligible for a
survivor continuance, same-sex marriage will make some survivors eligible for
continued health benefits who otherwise would not be (those who would
currently receive no optional portion of the monthly allowance as a result of the
retirement option chosen by their same-sex partner). Same-sex marriage will
affect survivors’ monthly allowance and continued health benefits.
to creating an entirely new benefit and cost. The cost of any potential new monthly
allowances under AB 205 will be, in part, offset for the state by not having to pay out the
lump-sum amount under current law. In addition, for some employees with registered
domestic partners, the impact of AB 205 on pre-retirement death benefits will not be to
create a new benefit, but, primarily, to switch the recipient of the benefit from the
employee’s child under 18 to their registered domestic partner. Based on the 2000 Census,
approximately 32.3% of gay and lesbian couples have children who are under the age of 18.
See SEARS & BADGETT, supra note 103, at 10.
We use a method similar to the one described above for estimating the
number of people who would receive pre-retirement death benefits each year to
estimate the number of people who would receive post-retirement death
benefits. To estimate the total number of retirees with same-sex spouses we
multiply the number of CalPERS retirees in 2003 (124,460)106 by the current
take-up rate for CalPERS domestic partner health benefits for annuitants
(.0034), resulting in 423 retirees.107 We then assume that over time the
proportion of beneficiaries to retirees for members of same-sex couples will be
the same as the proportion of all CalPERS survivors and beneficiaries to
CalPERS retirees: twenty percent.108 In other words, the estimate of the
number of surviving same-sex spouses will be twenty percent of the number of
retirees in a same-sex marriage. At most, an additional eighty-five people could
be eligible for a survivor continuance and consequent continued health benefits.
Table VII below summarizes these findings.
TABLE VIII. Estimate of CalPERS Same-Sex Spouse Retirement Beneficiaries

Ratio of Estimated
CalPERS Domestic Number of CalPERS Number of
Number of Partner Health Retirees with Retirees to Same-Sex
CalPERS Benefit Take-up Rate Same-Sex Survivors & Spouse
Retirees for Retirees Spouses Beneficiaries Survivors
124,460 0.0034 423 0.2 85
A number of interrelated variables determine a survivor’s combined

monthly allowance, making an accurate determination of the cost of providing
enhanced survivor benefits to these eighty-five people impossible. To create the
most conservative estimate, we assume that each of the potential eighty-five
survivors would be in a position to receive the additional benefit that would be
the most expensive for the CalPERS benefit plans. To summarize our method,
we assume that the eighty-five state retirees partnered with these survivors all:
(1) chose the unmodified allowance option settlement,109 (2) have no family
106. CALPERS, COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, supra note 99, at 38.
This figure is the number of retirees in the following plans in 2003: state employees in
the Public Employees Retirement Fund, retirees in the Legislator’s Retirement Fund, and
the Judges’ Retirement Fund.
107. Interview with Schneider, supra note 95 (revealing a 0.0034 take-up rate for
annuitants).
109. This is a conservative estimate because presently only about 51% of retirees
choose an unmodified allowance or option settlement, thereby creating no annuity for a
designated beneficiary other than the survivor continuance. Interview with Schneider,
supra note 95. Under four out of six available option settlements, a retiree with a domestic
partner can already designate a domestic partner as the beneficiary and create an annuity that
would be comparable to, although less than, the annuity that their domestic partner would
receive as an eligible survivor under AB 205.
members that would qualify for the survivor continuance under current law,110
and (3) have surviving same-sex spouses who would be eligible111 for a
survivor continuance. Prior to the extension of marriage to same-sex couples,
these survivors would receive no monthly allowance and would not be entitled
to continued health benefits, and the state would not be paying a survivor
continuance to any other survivor of the retiree. After the extension of marriage
to same-sex couples, all of these survivors would be entitled to both a monthly
allowance and continued heath benefits.
We then use CalPERS’s current average monthly retirement allowance and
the average annual cost to employers for health care coverage112 to estimate the
cost of providing monthly allowances and continued health care coverage to
these eighty-five additional survivors. Under this most expensive scenario, we
estimate that extending marriage to same-sex couples in California would result
in additional annual costs of, at most, $501,712. Our most realistic estimate is
that the actual annual costs will be less than this amount.
c. Retirement Allowances
Same-sex marriage will impact the lifetime allowances given to retired

employees with same-sex spouses. This is true because, when selecting four of
the six available options for creating an annuity for a survivor, if the retiree has
a family member eligible for a survivor continuance, he or she can create a
higher lifetime monthly allowance for him or herself—and a consequent higher
annuity—than an employee who does not have a family member eligible for a
survivor continuance. However, this impact is marginal. In making same-sex
spouses eligible for survivor continuance, same-sex marriage in California
would only increase any individual retiree’s monthly allowance by, at most,
two percent.
However, the impacts of same-sex marriage on survivor and retirement
110. In fact, some of these retirees will have an eligible family member under current
law, even though their domestic partner is not currently eligible. Thus, any retiree who had a
domestic partner and also had a child under 18 or a qualifying dependent parent, would be
entitled to the same survivor continuance (although possibly for a different period of time)
under current law as under AB 205. The impact of AB 205 for these retirees would merely
be to change the recipient of the survivor continuance.
111. In the short term, this is unlikely. To be eligible, the domestic partnership must
have been registered one year prior to the member’s retirement and remain registered until
the retiree’s death. Since domestic partners have only been able to register since July 1,
2000, only members who have retired during the past two years would have domestic
partners eligible for this benefit.
112. Interview with Schneider, supra note 95 (noting a $1400 average monthly
retirement allowance). Currently, CalPERS does not have an average cost for health
benefits. Id. We use the national annual average for the employer contribution instead. See
KAISER FAMILY FOUND. & HEALTH RES. & EDUC. TRUST, EMPLOYER HEALTH BENEFITS, 2003
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1 (2003) (noting a $2874 national average), http://www.kff.org/
insurance/upload/20688_1.pdf (last visited Oct. 21, 2005).
allowances are inversely related to each other. The scenario that we use above
to calculate the cost of survivor benefits ($560,000) maximizes the combined
additional costs of both survivor and retirement benefits. Accordingly, we do
not need to estimate any additional costs for retirement allowances here.
3. Paying for Additional Benefits
The funding for these additional survivor monthly allowance benefits

would primarily come from investment earnings from CalPERS funds and
member contributions, as opposed to state/employer contributions. Thus, the
state would only pay for a fraction of the additional costs for providing benefits
if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. As of June 30, 2002, the date of the
most recent actuarial valuation, the funded status of PERF was 95.2%.113 At
that time, the amount by which PERF actuarial assets exceeded actuarial
benefit liabilities was $7.9 billion.114 Thus, no additional contributions would
be needed to fully fund PERF in light of the new survivor benefits for same-sex
spouses. In addition, CalPERS bases its death and retirement benefits on an
actuarial assumption that ninety percent of its members are married.115 Since
same-sex marriage will only have a negligible impact on enrollment, it will not
increase rates or lead to a revision of this actuarial assumption.
However, to provide a conservative estimate, we assume that the state will
pay thirty percent116 of the increased costs in providing these benefits. This
would result in annual costs of less than $150,514 each year for the state. Since
this amount is based on the most expensive scenario, our most realistic estimate
is that the state would pay somewhere between $0 and $150,514 each year.
IV. NEGATIVE IMPACT: INCOME TAX REVENUES
Extending marriage to same-sex couples will have an impact on income tax

revenues since AB 205 did not affect income tax filing status. Same-sex
couples who marry will have the right to use the “married filing jointly” tax
status, giving them the ability to use that status if it reduces their taxes.
Marriage will also likely eliminate the ability of now “single” taxpayers with

114. Id. at 16.
115. Telephone Interview with Pamela Schneider, supra note 95.
116. This percentage is based on the employer contributions as a percentage of benefits
paid by CalPERS in 2003. Although the employer percentage was 28%, we increase it to
30% to provide for a conservative estimate and to account for fluctuations in this ratio.
Employer contributions are calculated as a percentage of payroll. The percentage is
actuarially determined. CALPERS, COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, supra
note 99, at 32, 50. For the year ending June 30, 2003, the State of California General Fund
contributed to none of CalPERS’ defined benefit funds except the Judicial Retirement Fund.
This contribution is made pursuant to state statute and is not actuarially determined. Id. at 51.
dependent children from using the “head of household” filing status, which
would increase the taxes that some couples owed. In this Part, we estimate the
impact of these offsetting effects. Overall, we find that the net loss of revenues
is likely to be approximately $9.2 million per year.
To estimate the net tax impact of allowing same-sex couples to marry, we
use the income and household characteristics of same-sex “unmarried partner”
couples living in California gathered by the Census Bureau’s 1% Public Use
Micro Sample.117 We use the Census data on total income and on the number
of children in a household to estimate each couple’s taxes twice. First we
estimate what couples pay now. Then we estimate their likely tax payments as a
married couple. Finally, we calculate the difference between their pre- and
post-marriage taxes.
A. How Many Couples Will Marry If California Extends Marriage to Same-Sex

Couples?
For the purpose of this analysis, as explained in the Introduction, we

assume one-half of the same-sex couples counted in California in Census 2000
will marry (approximately 46,000 couples) and that tax consequences will have
no impact on who decides to marry.118 We make this assumption for several
reasons. First, social scientists have done extensive research on the federal
“marriage penalty”—the situation in which some married couples pay more in
taxes when they marry than if they remained single. Overall, research suggests
that the marriage penalty has, at most, a very small impact on the likelihood
that a couple will marry.119 Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that the
smaller state tax impact of marriage will also have little effect on the number of
people marrying. Second, as noted earlier, marriage might come with other
financial advantages that outweigh a negative tax impact, such as gaining
spousal benefits from employers. Finally, research by anthropologists and other
social scientists suggests that the decision to marry or enter into another form
of commitment with a partner has a deep symbolic and cultural value apart
from economic considerations.120
117. We thank Dr. Gary Gates of the Urban Institute for supplying us with an extract of
the 1% Public Use Microsample Data (PUMS) from Census 2000. The 1% PUMS provides
data on 935 same-sex couples in California and gives each individual’s total income from all
sources in 1999. We used the CPI-U to inflate the 1999 dollars to 2002 dollars.
118. AB 205 requires the state to notify all couples currently registered as domestic
partners of changes in the meaning of this status and of the procedure for dissolving the
status. 2003 Cal. Adv. Legis. Serv. 421 (Deering). Therefore, by “signing up” we mean both
couples who newly sign up and couples who simply retain their registration.
119. See, e.g., James Alm & Leslie A. Whittington, For Love or Money? The Impact of
Income Taxes on Marriage, 66 ECONOMICA 297 (1999) (finding a very small effect of the
marriage penalty on the probability of marriage).
120. See LEWIN, supra note 50; LESBIAN AND GAY MARRIAGE, supra note 50.
B. What Will the Pre- & Post-Marriage Filing Status Be for Individuals in
Same-Sex Couples?
We must make several assumptions to estimate taxes for couples. First, we

assume that the individual listed as the “householder” of a same-sex couple will
file as “head of household” if his or her own children under eighteen years old
are living in the household, and that this person’s unmarried partner will file as
single.121 The “head of household” status involves lower tax rates and higher
deductions compared to single filers. We also assume that after marrying, the
former “head of household” will not qualify as such and the couple would then
file as “married filing jointly.” Second, when the householder has no children
living with him or her, we assume that both partners currently file as single and
will file as “married filing jointly” if allowed to marry.
C. How Much Will Couples’ Taxes Change?
We then calculate taxes twice: pre- and post-marriage. The tax simulations
were necessarily simple. To calculate adjusted gross income, we assumed each
partner used the standard deduction and had one exemption to claim apiece if
single, and one dependent exemption per own child. We then applied the 2003
California state tax schedule to calculate the taxes owed by each individual and
couple, first when each partner files as single or as head of household (if
children are present), and second when the couple files jointly. Our estimates of
the state taxes paid show that fifty-four percent of same-sex couples in
California would see their taxes fall if they could file jointly as married couples
do. The average decrease in taxes for these couples would be $542. For thirty-
five percent of same-sex couples, filing jointly would have no impact on their
state income taxes. For approximately eleven percent of same-sex couples, their
state income taxes would increase if they could file jointly. The average
increase in taxes for these couples would be $866. These couples are generally
those couples in which one partner previously filed as head of household.
D. Calculating the Overall Change in Tax Revenue
Table IX shows how the proportions above and predicted changes in taxes
can be used to calculate the number of couples falling into each category,
assuming 46,069 couples will marry.122 Multiplying the number of couples in
121. Head of household status determination is complex, but an unmarried person with
a dependent child likely qualifies. See CAL. FRANCHISE TAX BD., FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS,
CALIFORNIA 540 & 540A, 2002 PERSONAL INCOME TAX BOOKLET 24-28 (2002),
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/02_forms/02_resbk.pdf?9682 (last visited Mar. 22, 2005).
122. When we applied the census household weights to the estimates of tax revenue
changes, we arrived at an almost identical figure. In Table IX, the “Number of Couples”
multiplied by “Average Change” will not exactly equal the “Total Change” due to rounding.
each category by the average change in taxes shows that tax revenues are likely
to fall by $9.2 million, as shown in the lower right hand corner of Table IX.
Table IX. Summary of Income Tax Revenue Calculations

Number of Percentage of Average Tax
Couples All Couples Change Per Couple Total Change
Taxes
5,080 11% $866 $4,399,610
Increase
Taxes
15,932 35% $0 $0
Same
Taxes
25,057 54% ($542) ($13,578,076)
Decrease
Totals: 46,069 100% n/a ($9,178,466)
CONCLUSION: IMPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA & OTHER STATES
A careful analysis of the effects of marriage on California budget items

suggests that allowing same-sex marriage will result in offsetting impacts. First,
the state will save money from expenditures on means-tested public benefit
programs. Second, out-of-state same-sex couples will visit California to marry,
generating additional sales tax revenue that the state would otherwise not
receive. Third, same-sex couples within the state will spend at least some of
their savings on weddings, creating additional sales tax revenues.
Fourth, giving domestic partners access to the family court system will
generate no noticeable impact on the demands on judges or the system. In fact,
dissolutions of the relationships of same-sex couples might use fewer judicial
resources if they were resolved with the procedures and laws applied to
marriage than they do currently, and such dissolutions will also generate fees
that would offset any increase in costs. Fifth, some state employees will gain
access to survivor benefits that were previously offered only to spouses. Even
high estimates of the impact of this employment benefit suggest that the
budgetary impact will be minimal. Finally, marriage will affect some couples’
income taxes. Some couples’ taxes will rise, and some couples’ taxes will fall
as a result of marrying.
The final step is to calculate the overall net impact of giving domestic
partners equal marriage rights. This tally requires one additional assumption
about the timing of marriages, since the calculations of individual items assume
that all couples marry right away. Instead, we note that in the European
countries that offer some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to
same-sex couples, the first year of access to the institution shows the highest
number of marriages or registrations by same-sex couples.123 The spike in
123. Kees Waaldijk, Small Change: How the Road to Same-Sex Marriage Got Paved in
the Netherlands, in LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX PARTNERSHIPS: A STUDY OF
marriages or partnerships in the first year suggests a high level of pent-up

demand and is usually followed by a sharp drop-off. Therefore, we assume that
in the first year, half of the eventual marriages take place, followed by one
quarter of the total in each of the next two years. In other words, in year one
there will be 23,000 weddings of in-state couples, in year two there will be
11,500 weddings, and in year three there will also be 11,500 weddings,
resulting in a total of 46,000 married same-sex couples.
TABLE X. Summary of Fiscal Impacts Allocated Over Three Years

Year 1: 50% Year 2: 75% Year 3: 100%
Married Married Married Total: 3 Years
Public Benefits $25,140,499 $37,710,749 $50,280,988 $113,132,246
Tourism Sales Tax
$6,046,764 $3,023,382 $3,023,382 $12,093,527
Revenues
In-State Weddings
$9,185,007 $4,592,504 $4,592,504 $18,370,014
Sales Tax Revenues
Income Tax Revenues ($4,589,233) ($6,883,850) ($9,178,466) ($20,651,549)
Total: $33,771,788 $35,425,911 $44,695,919 $122,944,238
Annual Average: $40,981,413
Table X above shows the distribution of the fiscal benefits and costs over
the three years, using the lowest estimate of out-of-state tourist spending. The
net impact over three years is a $123 million net gain for the California budget.
The average annual impact is a $41 million net gain. In thinking about the
robustness of these estimates, it is important to note that the totals are
dominated by one item, the savings on public benefits. However, the negative
effect on income tax revenues is more than offset by tourism gains in two of the
three years. Therefore, even much smaller savings in public benefits than
estimated here would result in budget neutrality, at a minimum. Overall,
though, savings in public benefits expenditures are likely to result in a net gain
to the state of California.
Because California already provides some rights and responsibilities of
marriage through domestic partnerships, the state may accrue some of these
savings once AB 205 goes into effect in 2005. Our estimate of the impact of
those enhanced domestic partnership rights is a net positive impact of $8
million to $10 million per year. The marginal effect of allowing same-sex
couples to marry, then, will be $28 million to $30 million per year, driven
largely by the increased number of couples marrying, as well as the new impact
on state income tax revenues.124
Although many of these same savings and costs might accrue to other
NATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 437, 464 (Robert Wintemute & Mads
Andenæs eds., 2001).
124. The other effect of marriage would be to allow couples to count earned income as
community property. That provision could have implications for couples’ federal income tax
payments but would have no impact on the state budget.
states, there are several factors that imply some potential differences in
budgetary outcomes. First, the tourism estimates assume that there is little or no
competition from other states that offer the right to marry to same-sex couples,
since Massachusetts does not currently allow out-of-state couples to marry
there. Even if additional states give in-state and out-of-state same-sex couples
the right to marry, thus creating competition for California and other states, the
new states may develop as regional wedding tourist centers. In that case,
wedding tourism revenues will be lower but not necessarily zero in other states.
Second, existing California law already provides for two benefits for same-
sex partners, reducing the impact of marriage on the budget. As noted above,
California already provided health care benefits for the domestic partners of
state employees before it considered domestic partner or same-sex marriage
legislation. Similarly, the California State Board of Equalization had already
amended the Property Tax Rules to allow same-sex partners to transfer real
estate to a same-sex partner without triggering a reassessment of the property
that would increase tax revenues to the state.
However, we have evaluated the impact of extending some or all of the
rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples on three different states:
California,125 New Jersey,126 and Vermont.127 In every case, we have found
that marriage equality has a positive impact on the state’s budget. In addition,
similar studies for Connecticut,128 New York,129 and the federal government130
have also shown that marriage equality has a positive fiscal impact. To date, the
evidence is undisputed that extending marriage to same-sex couples does not
have a negative impact on a state’s budget.
125. See supra note 17 (listing California reports by the authors).

126. Badgett & Sears, supra note 18.
127. BADGETT, supra note 55.
128. OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS REPORT, supra note 21; SUSAN PRICE-LIVINGSTON,
CONN. GEN. ASSEMBLY OFFICE OF LEGIS. RESEARCH, TOURISM IMPACT OF PERMITTING SAME-
SEX UNIONS IN CONNECTICUT (2003), http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/connstudy_
files/conntourism.htm (last visited Mar. 22, 2005).
129. Testimony of N.Y. State Comptroller Hevesi, supra note 43.
130. Letter from Holtz-Eakin, supra note 19.

P P E ? T I S - S M C ' B: Utting A Rice On Quality HE Mpact of AME EX Arriage On Alifornia S Udget

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P P E ? T I S - S M C ' B: Utting A Rice On Quality HE Mpact of AME EX Arriage On Alifornia S Udget

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

P P E ? T I S - S M C ' B: Utting A Rice On Quality HE Mpact of AME EX Arriage On Alifornia S Udget

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What is the main topic of discussion in the document?

What factors are analyzed that could have a positive fiscal impact on the state budget?

What factors are analyzed that could have a positive fiscal impact on the state budget?

UNPAGINATED VERSION FOR UNOFFICIAL USE PLEASE CITE 16 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV.

PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY? THE

PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY? THE

2 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 3

4 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

state disability benefits, and to be appointed as a conservator if the other partner is

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 5

WILLIAMS PROJECT ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION LAW, THE IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA’S BUDGET OF

6 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

costs incurred by allowing same-sex marriage. Although administrative costs,

I. NUMBER OF SAME-SEX COUPLES WHO WILL MARRY

One estimate that is central to our analysis is the number of same-sex

sequence=0 (last visited Mar. 18, 2005).

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 7

May 2004, approximately 26,387 couples had registered as domestic partners

8 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

II. POSITIVE IMPACTS ON THE STATE BUDGET

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 9

impacts on California’s budget: (1) expenditure savings in means-tested public

A. Public Benefits Programs

Allowing same-sex couples to marry is likely to affect expenditures on

33. U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY, BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

10 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

Medi-Cal, the federal government determines generally applicable eligibility

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 11

12 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

TABLE I. Program Recipients Likely To Become Ineligible For Benefits

respondents about their participation in five public benefits programs.46

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 13

CEREMONIES (Suzanne Sherman ed., 1992).

14 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

marriage—over $50 million in savings each year.

B. Tax Revenues from Same-Sex Wedding Tourism

Analyses of other states’ consideration of opening marriage to same-sex

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 15

16 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 17

68. SIMMONS & O’CONNELL, supra note 24, at 4 tbl. 2.

18 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

TABLE III. Impact On California Sales Tax Revenues From Extending

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 19

C. Increased Sales Tax Revenues from Resident Same-Sex Couples’ Weddings

As explained in Part I, we assume that one-half of the same-sex couples in

20 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

III. NO SIGNIFICANT FISCAL IMPACT

Based on the best data available, we estimate that extending marriage to

2005] PUTTING A PRICE ON EQUALITY 21

burden on courts with regard to these proceedings and causes of action.

TABLE V. Estimates of Dissolutions Per Year of Marriages by Same-Sex Couples

Number of Estimated Same-

22 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 16:1

Currently, California’s superior courts handle approximately 148,000 to

TABLE VI. Annual Fluctuations in Family Law